You're so wrong on so much here. I don't have the energy to get into it right now, but CATO does a pretty good job clarifying your supposed facts. Though you might argue with CATO's conclusions given their conservative bias, you can't credibly argue with the actual verifiable data collected from the US census. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.
Actually, if you want to be technical, Gates did run a company before MS, look it up. Secondly, neither Gates nor Jobs requested a large infusion of cash for a totally unknown person/company (i.e., themselves). Thirdly, if Fanning didn't like those terms and conditions, he could have shopped around and found someone else. However, it's extremely doubtful that anyone would be willing to do that for him, especially given the technology.
Oh please. Shawn wrote a simple piece of software, and he got a nice chunk of change for it. He did not take the lion's share of the risk or effort. His uncle did. Shawn also doesn't know how to run a business. He doesn't deserve to "run" the company, and he wouldn't know how to anyways.
His intention might be to disincentivize "speculation", but it's right to question his intent, his methods, and the potentially devastating end result. That's exactly what I did. His merely arguing that we need to "disincentivize speculation" does not mean that any action that appears to address it should be done (much like many other issues). They are less than 15% of the market and that's with the broadest of definitions, not necessarily your "true" day trader. As I pointed out, day trading simply doesn't pay off. To be more exact, according to NASD 70% of public traders will not only lose, but will almost certainly lose everything they invest. Virtually no one wins, certainly not the amateurs (the professionals have a significant advantage on them). The problem will almost certainly largely correct itself. Those who don't are totally irrational, and an additional transaction cost is unlikely to dissuade them. In addition, most of the volatility isn't coming from traders that constantly churn, but rather from so-called investors that lack staying power and fundamental understanding of the markets. People like your next door neighboor that buy into some DotCom because he's told it's the next big thing. Since his plan isn't to churn, taxing trades isn't going to dissuade him. In other words, I question the very need. Second, while this problem may disappear, there are a number of well established, legitimate, and valuable functions on the market that will get hit by taxing transactions; even established mutual funds would feel the pinch. Tell me, what percentage exactly is high enough to dissuade a day trader, but not hurt a fund? 1%? 2%? I think most investors would feel that. To make a long story short, it's a bad idea.
I've heard Nader talk about this issue a number of times. He's perfectly serious, trust me. I, also, doubt Nader has the ability to poke fun at himself, he takes himself far too seriously for that.
Though I disagree with the extent of your view, I can respect it because you appear to be consistent. However, the question is, are you really willing to let people who cannot afford medical care die? I'm not trying to critize you or anything, but I do question many people's resolve. Certainly there are times when the answer comes easily but others are not nearly so simple. Should we spend 2 million dollars on an exotic treatment of lung cancer for man that in 75 years old, when we know the chance of it working is only 1 in 10 and even then his odds of surviving the next 6 months is slim? Or a similar amount on a crack baby that has no chance of surving the next 6 months? Probably not. On the other hand, there are cases where we can save a person's life at a "reasonable" cost of, say, 100k. If the only way to provide that care is through government, would you still say no?
Bollocks. It's called democracy. In such systems people vote for representatives amongst them, and those chosen to be in power do have the mandate from the people to rule and pass laws according to their campaign agenda.
No. In republics you elect representives, in democracies you vote directly. In fact, if you studied the founders of the United States, you'd know they were very weary of "democracy"--instead they pushed for the foundation of a republic. They also discussed the "tyranny" of the majority at length. You might say the United States errs towards democracy, but don't forget the distinction.
In this system, we also have something called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which are not trumped by mere majority rule. It also stipulates that we are not to discriminate amongst citizens. If, for some reason, the popular majority wants to plow down poor people's houses because "we don't like them" (i.e., they're ugly), that is not sufficient; we recognize all people equally. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right or fair or legal. That is why we have institutions like the Supreme Court.
Anyways, do you really know what Nader "wants"? He says he wants to tax everything "we" don't like. Not that he would have the power as president, but we don't know what he's going to do until he explicitely states exactly what that is. If you don't know what it is, you can't exactly say we voted for that act.
First, let me be clear, I couldn't disagree more with Nader's proposals here. To the extent that the system is being used as a stick and carrot approach to shape things that "we" (obviously always suspect) like or dislike, I disagree; however, not everything is quite so simple. As long as our government is in the business of providing medical care for people who fall sick, I think it's fair that the people who put themselves at disproportionate risk of costing the system SHOULD be taxed. That, in my opinion, is far more fair than saying that everyone should have to pay a significant amount of taxes so a slice of our population can enjoy it. I certainly realize this can be used in other areas, but I think that's only proper. In my opinion, to be consistent, you must either be one or the other. If you're against any government "behavior" taxes, then you should also be against the government having to pay for those costs and be willing to accept the costs of that decision (i.e., not having government pay for critical lung surgery). But if you want the government to pay for the associated medical costs, then you should also be willing to accept the fact that each time you purchase cigs it has a negative expected value that can be computed with reasonable accuracy. The tax may not be exact, but it'd place far more of the costs on those who create them.
I've heard Nader speak on the issue. What he's really talking about are day traders and the like. These are a distinctly different breed than the ones who are generating wealth. In fact, virtually EVERY day trader looses money on the aggregate (hint: That's not how you build wealth). They may win on a couple trades, but for everyone of those they lose or just break even. It's virtually impossible to beat the market and if you can't the transaction costs (i.e., the price you pay per trade) will eat you alive.
Nader wants to tax ALL trades, believing that people who turn over their portfolios a lot will get hit, and thus be discouraged, while "grandma" who holds on to her portfolio will only incur nominal taxes when she sells. However, this is pretty foolish because, as I pointed out, they already are losing on average. Secondly, this does nothing to override windfall profits on a particular trade. Thirdly, even speculators (not all speculators are alike) can (and do) play a postive role in the markets, they can and do absorb risk (i.e., by buying a stock when it's falling). Fourthly, though I don't have the exact numbers on hand, I don't believe the more recent volatility in the markets is the result of "pure" day traders; rather, it's something in between. It's the mass of new and inexperienced traders that, although they aren't necessarily turning over their portfolio every day, they don't understand the fundamental nature of the market. They buy into the hype, the fear, the fud, etc, and are easily spooked as a result. It is doubtful that a tax would address these people, unless it was really high (in which case, it'd absolutely kill the economy).
As for your second point about people "buying" up large quantities of stock so they can profit, that's absolutely baseless. If it were anything close to a sure thing, it wouldn't be called speculation anyways.
Heh. I didn't know they were still selling Gravis Game Pads. I discovered awhile ago on one of my joysticks that the hat switch was perfect for directional movement (i.e., back, forward, left strafe, right strafe). Unfortunately the damn thing is just too big when I jsut need the hat switch. I was thinking about buying a gravis gamepad for that use (i used to own two), but I couldn't seem to find them in the stores anymore.
Does this thing actually work? Or does someone know of a good device for what I need?
Not that I particularly care, but this seems to be a shallow argument. When you're searching the skies, you're trying to FIND something; ignorance is NOT bliss in this case. When you're listening to music, all that matters is what you can hear. Now maybe there is a more scientific method to determine what you can hear, such that you can detect percentable problems before you run into them, but other than that, who really cares?
the chances that a republican offering a hug tax cut will win are pretty fair. if we cut those taxes who do you think will lose out? space, children, the homeles, or corporate welfare? i don't see marlboro as being too worried at the prospect.
Actually, the chances are, if tax rates get reduced, the tax revenues will increase. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but if you look at the emprical evidence tax revenues have actually risen as a result of tax cuts in most every instance. This is true, most notably with Coolidge's, JFK's, and even Reagan's. Now it is also true that there is sometimes accompanying inflation, but on average real tax revenues rise, and when they don't the loss is rather nominal. In short, the odds are slim that Bush's tax cuts will result in a need to cut government spending at all. There is room to spare and fat can be cut without needing to cut programs like NASA, education, or what have you.
That being said, I'm a little worried about Bush's tax cuts overheating the economy at this particular point in time, even though I'm going to vote for Bush.
As a general comment about the economics on which you speak, there's a massively horrible downside. You see, in this case, demand honestly outstrips supply. In this case, prices must indeed rise.
True.
But what happens when supply doesn't outstrip demand, and yet prices still rise? You can see it happen with monopolies - Microsoft makes(in some ways) very bad software, and charges a *lot* of money for it. We're all getting nailed.
Yes, monopolies can and have been made. Yes, they've hurt the consumer. However, they tend to be the exception, rather than the rule; much like the government allowing individual freedom, individuals can and have hurt each other, but that doesn't mean it must happen, or that we'd be better off without it. What's more, most of these monopolies were GRANTED by the government with the intention of helping people (that's another debate entirely).
Yes, the "Free Market" system is simple and easy to understand, but it is by no means fair in this day and age.
What do you mean by that? Do you honestly believe that any other system would produce goods that cost less on the aggregate? It's pretty hard to deny that we've benefited tremendously on the aggregate, and that we still do.
They are not extraneous. The stability of the US government DEPENDS on keeping foreign people's under its boot. If those countries were not exposed to the neo-liberal policies of the US which--like the British Empire in India--GUARANTEE a market for their company's goods, your "stability" goes bye-bye. The US did this with the Philippines, Hawaii, Guatemala, the list goes on and on. Here, inside the Plastic Bubble, things look and feel great (comparatively), and these aggressions are justified, in Orwellian fashion, as "defending democracy" and "enhancing stability". The question is: stability for whom? The obvious answer is: US, and us alone.
Bull. Less than 20% of our exports go to South America, Latin America, and other countries in the Western hemisphere. In addition, those countries that we have most control over also tend to be the most minor economically, by any measure (i.e., agricultural production, imports, exports, etc). This does not mean the US has never done anything immoral, but THAT IS irrelevant to the question of the internal stability of the United States. To excuse the stability of the US when those countries play such a minor economic role and ignore the many other undeniable unique features of our political and government system is foolish.
Like all imperialistic states, the US is a predator, and it chooses the weakest of enemies to pick on or exploit. THAT is what makes this country stable--the combination of US force of arms and the willingness to use them against defeated/weaker opponents (the Bomb in Japan and depleted uranium shells in Iraq), and the corresponding largesse its economic policies (armed extortion) lavishes on its own populace. If you believe otherwise, congratulations, you're the perfect US citizen.
I don't agree with all US foreign policy. In fact, I happen to think much of it is il-concieved, unfair, and sometimes even immoral. However, it's just plain wrong to say that these, and other acts, in modern times, were all done out of imperial motives. There are plenty of other reasons.
If you believe otherwise, congratulations, you're the perfect US citizen.
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass or put you down or anything, but you really need to start thinking outside of the box the American Intelligensia has fostered on you.
Ah the common rejoinder of radical liberals. If you don't agree with my view, you must be a lamb or _insert other noun or adjective_.
I never said the _only_ time the US screwed anyone ever over was during the Cold War. But the fact is that the bulk of the problems in more recent times came then, especially the more popular ones that academics like to complain about. Anyways, if you want to be technical, Haiti is neither South America or Latin America, it is the Caribbean and it has a totally different culture. Nor did I say, or imply, that the US is perfectly ethical. Quite the contrary, I actually said the US did less than desirable things out of self interest.
What I do dispute vigorously is the assertion that the United States is internally stable because of some of our past "imperialistic" escapades. It's absolutely unsupported by the facts and there are many more probable reasons for our success. For instance, less than 20% of our exports go to the whole of South America, Latin America, and other nations on the western hemisphere, and an even smaller percentage of our imports comes from them. Do they have an effect on our economy? Sure. Is the success of our economy contingent on them? Definetely not, we'd still be considered very successfull even if you took that away. Furthermore, there are plenty of other non-economic reasons that account for our stability. i.e., the two party system, the balance of powers, a strong constitution, an abiding faith in our system, etc etc etc
First, welcome to the real world. It is true with many things you can buy, especially on luxary items. This is called supply and demand. Here, as you can see, supply outstrips demand. Thus prices must rise, otherwise we'll have really distorted economics.
Secondly, is it really more fair to award them based on who is the biggest geek? Or whom we presume benefits most? Who is going to determine this? It seems to me that letting simple economics dictate who gets these things is the most equitable way. If you really want toys like these before everyone else, you have one choice. Get a better paying job, make sacrifices, earn more money, and be willing to cough it up when the opportunity presents itself. Otherwise, shut your mouth.
This is apology for atrocity, not a testament to American stability. The REASON you've got it so fine is BECAUSE of those "mistakes" made in the Cold War.
What is that supposed to mean? I said the events in South America are largely extraneous. In other words, it neither contributes nor takes away from the notion that the United States has an extremely stable goverment.
I suppose you believe that dropping the Bomb on Japan was justified, too.
That's an entirely different subject, but yes. I do think it was necessary, with some reservations.
All of which puts the lie into Katz's view of the Internet as savior. Yes, people talk here, but they act and think as they always did.
I disagree with Katz on almost everything, especially this notion. The internet is not a savior. In fact, I believe it'll ultimately pale in comparison to the effect of the telephone on the world.
Short and sweet. Those major changes occured over how many decades and centuries? Katz makes how many predictions per week? Anyways, it's not just the predictions that I take exception with. It's the fuzzy thinking behind his predictions and even statements of the present. It's the fact that Katz probably doesn't believe what he says. It's the fact that he effectively manipulates one too many kiddies. etc etc etc
I'm looking at a greater trend here and this article is just one element of it. Perhaps you lack the experience or knowledge of his previous articles? In any event, this article is just one more in the series. It doesn't buck it at all. This is on the "internet will liberate everything" trend. The next will be the threat by the corporation against the individual....and on and on and on. It's brain candy. It lacks any real substance.
Probably the stupidest thing uttered and followed up by an even more hollow point.
No it is not. Fundamental change in this world is rare. Consider how many Katz-like "predictions" there are per actual change. It's 1 million to 1.
Do you really think that the introduction of radio and TV didn't suddenly change things?
On a Katzian scale, it doesn't even register. After the television or radio was introduced, did politics make a sudden change? Did it shift suddenly towards or away from the people? Did corruption and backroom dealing suddenly leave or join politics? The answer is a resounding no. Politicians may have dressed a little different. Politians may have need to be a certain height, look a certain way, etc. They may have felt the need to do and say certain things, but it's still fundamentally the same world; what little significant change has happened over an extended period of tim (i.e., the trend towards soundbite media).
Katz doesn't give a carefull and balanced analysis of anything. It's either biased by very good or very bad. In short, it's alarmism. He's feeding the kiddies desire to scream and shout about something, nothing more.
Ask France what it thinks of "American stability". Hell, ask American victims such as Panama what it thinks.
I admit, the US screwed over much of South and Latin America. However, the fact of the matter is that we didn't do it for shits and grins; we were fighting the Cold War. It was serious business, despite the revisionist history of some recent historians. Now maybe the United States made some mistakes, even towards its objective of containment, but once a situation reaches a certain threshold there isn't a rewind button; sometimes you simply don't have another choice.
Anyways, this has nothing to do with "American stability." America's government was fundamentally stable throughout. The actions taken during that time are largely extraneous to the question of American stability.
As an American, I think it's high time we started acting "like one of those second rate NATO countries". The stability you speak of is STASIS, and it's maintained by an oligarchy of fascist capitalists.
Sure whatever. I'd rather live in this static republic than the highly volatile governments of most of Europe's democracies. Universal healthcare and such may sound like a dream at first glance, but when you start looking at what it is in actuality, and what it actually costs, it's less than absolutely desirable. When you examine the amount of damage these various coalition goverments have imposed, I suspect even you would reconsider.
Most things in this world are they way they are for a reason. Rare is it when everything suddenly changes just because some technology was introduced. Rare is it when an issue is so simple as to only have one bad guy (i.e., "government", "corporations", "religions", etc.) Of course, Katz probably already knows this. He probably doesn't care, because making silly predictions of doom and gloom or hope is his stock and trade. First, by making these predictions Katz can target the malcontent groupthink niche that resides here on slashdot (being the only ones that'll look past your mediocre style). Second, if, by god, Katz happens to actually be even approximately right on one of these predictions he gains fame--few will remember the thousands of failed prophecies he has made.
I really wonder sometimes. Doesn't he ever want to be anything more than a hack? He may pull the wool over many slashdot kiddies eyes, but it must ring hollow, for both himself and the slashdot editors. Why can't slashdot just bite the bullet and admit that Katz is nothing but a cheap money making ploy? I can't speak for the powers that be at slashdot, but if I were them I'd want to do something that makes a positive contribution to this world, even if it is a little less profitable. Selling brain candy is not productive. Entertaning? Perhaps, but the popular media that slashdot loves to criticize does the same thing. Of course, if it's popular it must be a good thing, right?
Which points out the reason people of a certain stripe don't like mass transit -- it not only can whisk you downtown, but it can whisk the great unwashed uptown.
I sorta doubt that. I happen to live on Philadelphia's so-called "Main Line", which is basically like the Seattle's east side only bigger, wealthier, and older. There is a well established commuter railway here that serves the community well. A lot of the locals take advantage of it. Proximity to the various stops is even a selling advantage on the real estate market. I've never seen nor heard of any complaints of the "wrong element" commuting in. If anything the railway helps bring labor in from outside, which is important. I think most people here realize this.
Anyways, I used to live in Seattle too, and though I don't know the particular local politics today, I suspect the primary reason for resistance from east siders would be the "not in my backyard" syndrome. No one wants to have their houses taken by the government or their immediate neighborhood trafficed, etc. It may be best for the larger neighorhood, but no one wants to bear the cost themselves. While almost no one wants it in their backyard, it's fair to say that more affluent neighborhoods tend to be more sensitive to any percieved threat against their real estate and, of course, they've got more political and legal clout which they can fight it with. It's silly and destructive, I know, but that's a distinctly seperate reason.
You certainly can't eliminate taxes, they're unquestionably necessary. I agree that both of these candidates are wacko. However, one thing I'd like to point out lowering taxes doesn't necessarily mean that the governments tax revenues will go down. In fact, the empirical evidence demonstrates much the opposite in almost every case in the modern developed world, especially in the United States. From JFK's to Reagan's tax cuts, the government tax revenue actually _increased_ significantly. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but it's a well documented fact.
That being said, Bush's tax cut obviously is not nearly as large as those historical cuts, so we probably wouldn't see such a tremendous jump. Though I'm voting for Bush, I disagree with his tax cuts because I think there is _some_ danger of it overheating the economy (not because I think it means we're going to have to make drastic cuts in expenditures).
I wouldn't want to vote for any of them over Bush, or even Gore (though I wouldn't vote for him either). If you were to include McCain and Ventura, I'd still vote for Bush, but McCain would be my second choice. The point is that not everyone is just settling for the candidates because they think they'd be "wasting" their vote or what have you. Bush isn't perfect by any means, but the alternatives are even less desirable. It's not inherently evil to not get everything you want--in a democracy/republic it's simply impossible to give everyone everything they want.
The US isn't all that different from England. In fact, it's been my experience that you see far more difference between socio-economic classes than you do between US and English citizens. In other words, a professional in the United States is apt to have more in common with his counterpart in England than he is with the blue collar worker down the street. They may follow different sports, drink a different beer, read different magazines, and what not, but once you get past that they're a lot alike.
Sure, you still have small town communities with a certain take of the world, but that's got more to do with how they live than the country they live in.
Slashdot Mirror
You're so wrong on so much here. I don't have the energy to get into it right now, but CATO does a pretty good job clarifying your supposed facts. Though you might argue with CATO's conclusions given their conservative bias, you can't credibly argue with the actual verifiable data collected from the US census. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.
Good night.
Actually, if you want to be technical, Gates did run a company before MS, look it up. Secondly, neither Gates nor Jobs requested a large infusion of cash for a totally unknown person/company (i.e., themselves). Thirdly, if Fanning didn't like those terms and conditions, he could have shopped around and found someone else. However, it's extremely doubtful that anyone would be willing to do that for him, especially given the technology.
Oh please. Shawn wrote a simple piece of software, and he got a nice chunk of change for it. He did not take the lion's share of the risk or effort. His uncle did. Shawn also doesn't know how to run a business. He doesn't deserve to "run" the company, and he wouldn't know how to anyways.
His intention might be to disincentivize "speculation", but it's right to question his intent, his methods, and the potentially devastating end result. That's exactly what I did. His merely arguing that we need to "disincentivize speculation" does not mean that any action that appears to address it should be done (much like many other issues). They are less than 15% of the market and that's with the broadest of definitions, not necessarily your "true" day trader. As I pointed out, day trading simply doesn't pay off. To be more exact, according to NASD 70% of public traders will not only lose, but will almost certainly lose everything they invest. Virtually no one wins, certainly not the amateurs (the professionals have a significant advantage on them). The problem will almost certainly largely correct itself. Those who don't are totally irrational, and an additional transaction cost is unlikely to dissuade them. In addition, most of the volatility isn't coming from traders that constantly churn, but rather from so-called investors that lack staying power and fundamental understanding of the markets. People like your next door neighboor that buy into some DotCom because he's told it's the next big thing. Since his plan isn't to churn, taxing trades isn't going to dissuade him. In other words, I question the very need. Second, while this problem may disappear, there are a number of well established, legitimate, and valuable functions on the market that will get hit by taxing transactions; even established mutual funds would feel the pinch. Tell me, what percentage exactly is high enough to dissuade a day trader, but not hurt a fund? 1%? 2%? I think most investors would feel that. To make a long story short, it's a bad idea.
I've heard Nader talk about this issue a number of times. He's perfectly serious, trust me. I, also, doubt Nader has the ability to poke fun at himself, he takes himself far too seriously for that.
Though I disagree with the extent of your view, I can respect it because you appear to be consistent. However, the question is, are you really willing to let people who cannot afford medical care die? I'm not trying to critize you or anything, but I do question many people's resolve. Certainly there are times when the answer comes easily but others are not nearly so simple. Should we spend 2 million dollars on an exotic treatment of lung cancer for man that in 75 years old, when we know the chance of it working is only 1 in 10 and even then his odds of surviving the next 6 months is slim? Or a similar amount on a crack baby that has no chance of surving the next 6 months? Probably not. On the other hand, there are cases where we can save a person's life at a "reasonable" cost of, say, 100k. If the only way to provide that care is through government, would you still say no?
In this system, we also have something called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which are not trumped by mere majority rule. It also stipulates that we are not to discriminate amongst citizens. If, for some reason, the popular majority wants to plow down poor people's houses because "we don't like them" (i.e., they're ugly), that is not sufficient; we recognize all people equally. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right or fair or legal. That is why we have institutions like the Supreme Court.
Anyways, do you really know what Nader "wants"? He says he wants to tax everything "we" don't like. Not that he would have the power as president, but we don't know what he's going to do until he explicitely states exactly what that is. If you don't know what it is, you can't exactly say we voted for that act.
First, let me be clear, I couldn't disagree more with Nader's proposals here. To the extent that the system is being used as a stick and carrot approach to shape things that "we" (obviously always suspect) like or dislike, I disagree; however, not everything is quite so simple. As long as our government is in the business of providing medical care for people who fall sick, I think it's fair that the people who put themselves at disproportionate risk of costing the system SHOULD be taxed. That, in my opinion, is far more fair than saying that everyone should have to pay a significant amount of taxes so a slice of our population can enjoy it. I certainly realize this can be used in other areas, but I think that's only proper. In my opinion, to be consistent, you must either be one or the other. If you're against any government "behavior" taxes, then you should also be against the government having to pay for those costs and be willing to accept the costs of that decision (i.e., not having government pay for critical lung surgery). But if you want the government to pay for the associated medical costs, then you should also be willing to accept the fact that each time you purchase cigs it has a negative expected value that can be computed with reasonable accuracy. The tax may not be exact, but it'd place far more of the costs on those who create them.
I've heard Nader speak on the issue. What he's really talking about are day traders and the like. These are a distinctly different breed than the ones who are generating wealth. In fact, virtually EVERY day trader looses money on the aggregate (hint: That's not how you build wealth). They may win on a couple trades, but for everyone of those they lose or just break even. It's virtually impossible to beat the market and if you can't the transaction costs (i.e., the price you pay per trade) will eat you alive.
Nader wants to tax ALL trades, believing that people who turn over their portfolios a lot will get hit, and thus be discouraged, while "grandma" who holds on to her portfolio will only incur nominal taxes when she sells. However, this is pretty foolish because, as I pointed out, they already are losing on average. Secondly, this does nothing to override windfall profits on a particular trade. Thirdly, even speculators (not all speculators are alike) can (and do) play a postive role in the markets, they can and do absorb risk (i.e., by buying a stock when it's falling). Fourthly, though I don't have the exact numbers on hand, I don't believe the more recent volatility in the markets is the result of "pure" day traders; rather, it's something in between. It's the mass of new and inexperienced traders that, although they aren't necessarily turning over their portfolio every day, they don't understand the fundamental nature of the market. They buy into the hype, the fear, the fud, etc, and are easily spooked as a result. It is doubtful that a tax would address these people, unless it was really high (in which case, it'd absolutely kill the economy).
As for your second point about people "buying" up large quantities of stock so they can profit, that's absolutely baseless. If it were anything close to a sure thing, it wouldn't be called speculation anyways.
Heh. I didn't know they were still selling Gravis Game Pads. I discovered awhile ago on one of my joysticks that the hat switch was perfect for directional movement (i.e., back, forward, left strafe, right strafe). Unfortunately the damn thing is just too big when I jsut need the hat switch. I was thinking about buying a gravis gamepad for that use (i used to own two), but I couldn't seem to find them in the stores anymore.
Does this thing actually work? Or does someone know of a good device for what I need?
Not that I particularly care, but this seems to be a shallow argument. When you're searching the skies, you're trying to FIND something; ignorance is NOT bliss in this case. When you're listening to music, all that matters is what you can hear. Now maybe there is a more scientific method to determine what you can hear, such that you can detect percentable problems before you run into them, but other than that, who really cares?
What about your amp and speakers?
That being said, I'm a little worried about Bush's tax cuts overheating the economy at this particular point in time, even though I'm going to vote for Bush.
Yes, monopolies can and have been made. Yes, they've hurt the consumer. However, they tend to be the exception, rather than the rule; much like the government allowing individual freedom, individuals can and have hurt each other, but that doesn't mean it must happen, or that we'd be better off without it. What's more, most of these monopolies were GRANTED by the government with the intention of helping people (that's another debate entirely).
What do you mean by that? Do you honestly believe that any other system would produce goods that cost less on the aggregate? It's pretty hard to deny that we've benefited tremendously on the aggregate, and that we still do.
I don't agree with all US foreign policy. In fact, I happen to think much of it is il-concieved, unfair, and sometimes even immoral. However, it's just plain wrong to say that these, and other acts, in modern times, were all done out of imperial motives. There are plenty of other reasons.
Ah the common rejoinder of radical liberals. If you don't agree with my view, you must be a lamb or _insert other noun or adjective_.
I never said the _only_ time the US screwed anyone ever over was during the Cold War. But the fact is that the bulk of the problems in more recent times came then, especially the more popular ones that academics like to complain about. Anyways, if you want to be technical, Haiti is neither South America or Latin America, it is the Caribbean and it has a totally different culture. Nor did I say, or imply, that the US is perfectly ethical. Quite the contrary, I actually said the US did less than desirable things out of self interest.
What I do dispute vigorously is the assertion that the United States is internally stable because of some of our past "imperialistic" escapades. It's absolutely unsupported by the facts and there are many more probable reasons for our success. For instance, less than 20% of our exports go to the whole of South America, Latin America, and other nations on the western hemisphere, and an even smaller percentage of our imports comes from them. Do they have an effect on our economy? Sure. Is the success of our economy contingent on them? Definetely not, we'd still be considered very successfull even if you took that away. Furthermore, there are plenty of other non-economic reasons that account for our stability. i.e., the two party system, the balance of powers, a strong constitution, an abiding faith in our system, etc etc etc
First, welcome to the real world. It is true with many things you can buy, especially on luxary items. This is called supply and demand. Here, as you can see, supply outstrips demand. Thus prices must rise, otherwise we'll have really distorted economics.
Secondly, is it really more fair to award them based on who is the biggest geek? Or whom we presume benefits most? Who is going to determine this? It seems to me that letting simple economics dictate who gets these things is the most equitable way. If you really want toys like these before everyone else, you have one choice. Get a better paying job, make sacrifices, earn more money, and be willing to cough it up when the opportunity presents itself. Otherwise, shut your mouth.
That's an entirely different subject, but yes. I do think it was necessary, with some reservations.
I disagree with Katz on almost everything, especially this notion. The internet is not a savior. In fact, I believe it'll ultimately pale in comparison to the effect of the telephone on the world.
Short and sweet. Those major changes occured over how many decades and centuries? Katz makes how many predictions per week? Anyways, it's not just the predictions that I take exception with. It's the fuzzy thinking behind his predictions and even statements of the present. It's the fact that Katz probably doesn't believe what he says. It's the fact that he effectively manipulates one too many kiddies. etc etc etc
No it is not. Fundamental change in this world is rare. Consider how many Katz-like "predictions" there are per actual change. It's 1 million to 1.
On a Katzian scale, it doesn't even register. After the television or radio was introduced, did politics make a sudden change? Did it shift suddenly towards or away from the people? Did corruption and backroom dealing suddenly leave or join politics? The answer is a resounding no. Politicians may have dressed a little different. Politians may have need to be a certain height, look a certain way, etc. They may have felt the need to do and say certain things, but it's still fundamentally the same world; what little significant change has happened over an extended period of tim (i.e., the trend towards soundbite media).
Katz doesn't give a carefull and balanced analysis of anything. It's either biased by very good or very bad. In short, it's alarmism. He's feeding the kiddies desire to scream and shout about something, nothing more.
Anyways, this has nothing to do with "American stability." America's government was fundamentally stable throughout. The actions taken during that time are largely extraneous to the question of American stability.
Sure whatever. I'd rather live in this static republic than the highly volatile governments of most of Europe's democracies. Universal healthcare and such may sound like a dream at first glance, but when you start looking at what it is in actuality, and what it actually costs, it's less than absolutely desirable. When you examine the amount of damage these various coalition goverments have imposed, I suspect even you would reconsider.
Most things in this world are they way they are for a reason. Rare is it when everything suddenly changes just because some technology was introduced. Rare is it when an issue is so simple as to only have one bad guy (i.e., "government", "corporations", "religions", etc.) Of course, Katz probably already knows this. He probably doesn't care, because making silly predictions of doom and gloom or hope is his stock and trade. First, by making these predictions Katz can target the malcontent groupthink niche that resides here on slashdot (being the only ones that'll look past your mediocre style). Second, if, by god, Katz happens to actually be even approximately right on one of these predictions he gains fame--few will remember the thousands of failed prophecies he has made.
I really wonder sometimes. Doesn't he ever want to be anything more than a hack? He may pull the wool over many slashdot kiddies eyes, but it must ring hollow, for both himself and the slashdot editors. Why can't slashdot just bite the bullet and admit that Katz is nothing but a cheap money making ploy? I can't speak for the powers that be at slashdot, but if I were them I'd want to do something that makes a positive contribution to this world, even if it is a little less profitable. Selling brain candy is not productive. Entertaning? Perhaps, but the popular media that slashdot loves to criticize does the same thing. Of course, if it's popular it must be a good thing, right?
Anyways, I used to live in Seattle too, and though I don't know the particular local politics today, I suspect the primary reason for resistance from east siders would be the "not in my backyard" syndrome. No one wants to have their houses taken by the government or their immediate neighborhood trafficed, etc. It may be best for the larger neighorhood, but no one wants to bear the cost themselves. While almost no one wants it in their backyard, it's fair to say that more affluent neighborhoods tend to be more sensitive to any percieved threat against their real estate and, of course, they've got more political and legal clout which they can fight it with. It's silly and destructive, I know, but that's a distinctly seperate reason.
You certainly can't eliminate taxes, they're unquestionably necessary. I agree that both of these candidates are wacko. However, one thing I'd like to point out lowering taxes doesn't necessarily mean that the governments tax revenues will go down. In fact, the empirical evidence demonstrates much the opposite in almost every case in the modern developed world, especially in the United States. From JFK's to Reagan's tax cuts, the government tax revenue actually _increased_ significantly. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but it's a well documented fact.
That being said, Bush's tax cut obviously is not nearly as large as those historical cuts, so we probably wouldn't see such a tremendous jump. Though I'm voting for Bush, I disagree with his tax cuts because I think there is _some_ danger of it overheating the economy (not because I think it means we're going to have to make drastic cuts in expenditures).
I wouldn't want to vote for any of them over Bush, or even Gore (though I wouldn't vote for him either). If you were to include McCain and Ventura, I'd still vote for Bush, but McCain would be my second choice. The point is that not everyone is just settling for the candidates because they think they'd be "wasting" their vote or what have you. Bush isn't perfect by any means, but the alternatives are even less desirable. It's not inherently evil to not get everything you want--in a democracy/republic it's simply impossible to give everyone everything they want.
The US isn't all that different from England. In fact, it's been my experience that you see far more difference between socio-economic classes than you do between US and English citizens. In other words, a professional in the United States is apt to have more in common with his counterpart in England than he is with the blue collar worker down the street. They may follow different sports, drink a different beer, read different magazines, and what not, but once you get past that they're a lot alike.
Sure, you still have small town communities with a certain take of the world, but that's got more to do with how they live than the country they live in.